Excellent post Graham thanks for putting it on here
Carryfast:
newmercman:
I disagree on the outsourcing of engines, vertical integration was the way to go, proven by the success of those that did it that way and the failure of those that didn’t.To complicate that a little, Rolls Royce diesels could have been part of British Leyland, then they would have had the best of both worlds, already standard fitment in the Crusader, it kind of makes sense, even though it wasn’t radically different to the TL12.
Surely the operator goes for what’s best not where/how it was sourced by the manufacturer.Bearing in mind that there are no conclusive precedents concerning vertical integration being mutually exclusive with the assembly model.As shown by Leyland previously and more recently Volvo using outsourced components as and when required.Also DB supplying loose Detroit engines together with the choice of ■■■■■■■ in Western Star.While for me the ultimate truck today would probably be an Australian spec KW with a loose supplied ( or just blatantly copied
) Scania V8 in it put with an 18 speed Fuller.Which leaves your own example in which if I’ve got it right a Pete glider with a CAT in it is more than a match for an in house Volvo ?.While surely the premise of the assembly model meaning failure is contradicted by the fact that Paccar used the cash earn’t based on the assembly model to buy out DAF and Leyland.Ironically I’d guess that manufacturers competing with each other to make the in house model work best is the definition of a ■■■■■■■ contest as to which has got the biggest bankers to back them.In which case the Germans were always going to win that race and even Scania’s bankers blinked first in that regard.
As for the TL12 v Rolls absolutely ‘if’ the UK government had wanted Leyland to survive it would/should have made a hostile takeover of Rolls Royce diesels.In which case Leyland most certainly would have had a radically different engine in terms of torque output potential than the TL12 for the reason I’ve given and as proved by its ability to take on the ■■■■■■■ in the T45.Having said that did it really matter when the only way that our sick war ravaged economy could have taken on the might of the German/European post war foreign aid scam was in the form of trade barriers and protectionist measures regardless.Instead of which they all went along with US foreign policy aims regarding Europe and the rest is history.
Quote; 'While for me the ultimate truck today would probably be an Australian spec KW ■■ - mmmmmm
Have you driven any Aus spec Kenworth’s then? - I’m guessing that maybe you haven’t, or it probably wouldn’t be at the top of your wish list - unless you fancy the following;
*no cab suspension - hence the rough ride.
*no air assistance on the clutch - hence a left leg like Shergar, just from pulling away in traffic a few times.
*an ‘on/off’ clutch operation- sometimes making you look like quite an amateur.
*appalling all round visibility, due to the windscreen & side windows being rather high
*crap mirrors
*crap windscreen wipers - generally resulting in a ‘smear’, not a ‘wipe’
*dodgy & sometimes dangerous cab entry / exit steps - be careful in wet there CF
But, as you quite correctly point out, you do get a choice of drivetrain - though not as big a choice as it used to be.I think the choice is currently ■■■■■■■■ or Paccar’s own MX motor - ie a Daf engine. Cat engines are definitely not available in a KW nowadays, and I’m not sure about the Detroit motor, which I suspect isn’t available as (correct me if I’m wrong) Detroit is owned by Daimler Benz, who like to fit the Detroit’s in the Freightliners - which is also owned by Daimler Benz.
The choice of gearbox is the good old Fuller roadranger (manual) - a great box, or the good old Fuller Roadranger (auto) a totally crap version of a great box.
Is this still top of the wish list? Funnily enough, while Aus built trucks are still plentiful here, the Europeans are making huge inroads (no pun intended) into the truck market here, which sort of confirms the previous remarks about in-house engine manufacture. Which ironically, is where things are heading here - Mack’s standard engine ( & gearbox) fitment is made by Volvo - who own Mack, Freightliner’s motors come from Merc / Daimler Benz, who own Freightliner - you get the picture.
Mind you CF, a Scania V8 lump?- I’m with you on that one though
I think the V8 Scania as a loose engine comment is the only sensible thing Carryfast has ever suggested, there would be one under the bonnet of my Peterbilt if such a thing existed.
On that subject, well sort of, the Leatherhead Loony mentioned my CAT engine and the newer Volvo in some kind of twisted logic pertaining to the Marathon, apples and oranges, as usual. The Volvo is smothered by emission control junk and judging by the problems I’ve had lately it’s made of cheese, whereas the CAT runs as nature intended, fresh air in and filthy polar ice cap melting smoke out, I bought it for reliability, not for the power and I have no idea how long the con-rods are, but I do know that it has a live rear axle, two in fact, not that any of that has any relevance to this thread, but he started it [emoji16][emoji16]
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
gingerfold:
Some explanation of sources of production figures. Firstly, all published vehicle registration figures, monthly or annually, are audited by the SMMT. Note these are actual registrations, not sales figures supplied by manufacturers. For any production figures I have quoted my source is the Leyland Group documents held in the British Commercial Vehicles Museum. They are not figures that I have requested from there, but they are from actual factory records and chassis build sheets that I have personally accessed and researched, a time consuming exercise, but to me interesting and absorbing. Whatever else might have been going wrong at British Leyland it was certainly not the documentation of its products. The records are very detailed and comprehensive. To establish how many TL12 engines were built then there will be a record of the production figures at the BCVM. To find out how many ■■■■■■■ and RR powered Marathons were built then it will require a trawl of all the individual Marathon chassis build sheets, as each engine type had its own designation.Take chassis build sheets as an example. When a sales order was received then the lorry chassis was immediately allocated a building number that became its chassis number. So, say Gingerfold Transport ordered a TL12 Marathon tractor unit in 1978 it would be identified as 2MTL3828FN. Then there was a 5 digit number beginning with a 3, and prefixed 2T25/27.
2 = Mark 2
M and T25/27= Marathon
TL = TL12 engine
38 = Design GTW in tons, (still limited to 32 tons GTW in the UK in 1977)
28 = TL12 engine BHP rating
F = Tractor Unit
N = Sleeper cab.The 5 digit chassis number was a sequential number and by 1977 it was in the mid-30,000 range. In about 1970 Leyland had changed AEC’s chassis numbering system from a series system for each AEC model to Leyland’s sequential system. For the researcher AEC’s own system was easier to follow. For example, if my Marathon’s number was 35,611, then 35,610 could have been a Reliance coach (with its own model prefix) and 35,612 could have been a Marshal (again with its own model prefix).
The chassis build sheets are very detailed, not just for Marathons but for every model built in the Leyland group. They record the vehicle designation, chassis number, engine type and number, gearbox type and number, rear axle type and number,diff ratio, original tyre make and size fitted, wheels, fuel tank size, and every component fitted. In addition they record the customer, date of registration, and registration number. Dealer stock orders will record the name of the dealer, surprisingly not very many of these. If an order was cancelled then, certainly in the individual model series chassis numbers, there will either be no chassis build sheet and therefore a gap in the numbering sequence, or it will be marked either “not built” or “not allocated”. Guy Motors retained a model series chassis number system for the Crusaders it built. Sometimes a registration number is not recorded, usually because the vehicle was stored before going into service, a not uncommon practice with some hauliers years ago.
Annual chassis build figures by individual factories or assembly plants. Obviously the largest output plants were Leyland and AEC, with annual chassis production capacity of approximately 6,000 and 5,000 respectively. The assembly lines ran on a 5-day week 50 weeks per year. However, the capacity figures are somewhat arbitrary because it depended on what types of chassis were being built. A 4x2 tractor unit takes less time to build than an eight wheeler. Internal factory photographs of AEC at Southall show that anything and everything was on the assembly line at the same time, Mandators, Mammoth Majors, Reliances, Bridgemaster buses, Marshals and so on. Leyland was the same and sales orders dictated production schedules. Having visited the DAF assembly plant at Leyland in recent years it is still the same there, a variety of models are in production at any given time. There was a well recorded production run at Southall in the early 1960s when Harold Wood required an urgent order of 43 Mammoth Major Mk.V eight wheelers. Agreement was reached with the unions to build them as one batch over a weekend, with the normal speed of building being calculated to take the two full days. All 43 had been finished by 11.00 am Sunday morning, causing AEC to investigate if batch production was the way forward to increase productivity. but sales requirements dictated otherwise.
Scammell at Tolpits Lane Watford was not a large site and its annual production could be as low as 1,200 chassis, but some of its products were complex. In the 1970s the 6x4 military spec Crusader was a complex machine, especially the recovery vehicle variants. It was also building the Routeman eight-wheeler, again a slow build chassis compared to a 4x2 tractor unit. When it built the Marathons after Southall closed then it is entirely feasible for them to have built them relatively quickly, especially as at that time Routeman production was ending in readiness for the introduction of the T45 Constructor model.
Hope I haven’t bored you all with the above.
No not boring always interested in “factual information” as opposed to “self opinionated rantings”
kmills:
Quote; 'While for me the ultimate truck today would probably be an Australian spec KW ■■ - mmmmmmHave you driven any Aus spec Kenworth’s then? - I’m guessing that maybe you haven’t, or it probably wouldn’t be at the top of your wish list - unless you fancy the following;
*no cab suspension - hence the rough ride.
*no air assistance on the clutch - hence a left leg like Shergar, just from pulling away in traffic a few times.
*an ‘on/off’ clutch operation- sometimes making you look like quite an amateur.
*appalling all round visibility, due to the windscreen & side windows being rather high
*crap mirrors
*crap windscreen wipers - generally resulting in a ‘smear’, not a ‘wipe’
*dodgy & sometimes dangerous cab entry / exit steps - be careful in wet there CFBut, as you quite correctly point out, you do get a choice of drivetrain - though not as big a choice as it used to be.I think the choice is currently ■■■■■■■■ or Paccar’s own MX motor - ie a Daf engine. Cat engines are definitely not available in a KW nowadays, and I’m not sure about the Detroit motor, which I suspect isn’t available as (correct me if I’m wrong) Detroit is owned by Daimler Benz, who like to fit the Detroit’s in the Freightliners - which is also owned by Daimler Benz.
The choice of gearbox is the good old Fuller roadranger (manual) - a great box, or the good old Fuller Roadranger (auto) a totally crap version of a great box.Is this still top of the wish list? Funnily enough, while Aus built trucks are still plentiful here, the Europeans are making huge inroads (no pun intended) into the truck market here, which sort of confirms the previous remarks about in-house engine manufacture. Which ironically, is where things are heading here - Mack’s standard engine ( & gearbox) fitment is made by Volvo - who own Mack, Freightliner’s motors come from Merc / Daimler Benz, who own Freightliner - you get the picture.
Mind you CF, a Scania V8 lump?- I’m with you on that one though
Great don’t see how any of that doen’t make the case for the return of the Scammell Crusader name stuck on a copy of a Volvo cab using a copy of the Scania V8 under it matched with an 18 speed Fuller we’ll also make sure that it’s got an air assisted clutch. 
Now awaits the howls of protest from Volvo and VAG group and the inevitable capitulation of UK bankers and UK government saying we can’t have that because it isn’t in the spirit of European ‘partnership’ and ‘co operation’ which translates as not risking the UK’s banks’ investment exposure in European industry. 
newmercman:
I think the V8 Scania as a loose engine comment is the only sensible thing Carryfast has ever suggested, there would be one under the bonnet of my Peterbilt if such a thing existed.On that subject, well sort of, the Leatherhead Loony mentioned my CAT engine and the newer Volvo in some kind of twisted logic pertaining to the Marathon, apples and oranges, as usual. The Volvo is smothered by emission control junk and judging by the problems I’ve had lately it’s made of cheese, whereas the CAT runs as nature intended, fresh air in and filthy polar ice cap melting smoke out, I bought it for reliability, not for the power and I have no idea how long the con-rods are, but I do know that it has a live rear axle, two in fact, not that any of that has any relevance to this thread, but he started it [emoji16][emoji16]
Firstly trucks have to have live rear axles because they are … trucks not cars and need to be built to handle weight.As opposed to making a decent riding and handling ( not to mention decent looking ) … car which can compete with a BMW.
While the reference to putting a latest generation Scania V8 in a ‘new’ Pete as opposed to the cheap and nasty in house,Renault designed ?,thing in the Volvo surely that’s obviously an apples v apples comparison which seems to bust the myth of all in house being best.My guess being that Peterbilt would massacre Volvo in North America given that option in its armoury. 
Bearing mind that the latest Scania V8 has a stroke of 6.1 inches v the 5.5 inches of the 140 although the Scania obviously had 33% more cylinders to share the load v the TL12.
As for the C15 that’s got a 6 3/4 inch stroke v the 5.5 inch stroke of the TL12.While the N14 and the Rolls Eagle were on a level 6 inch par.Make of that what you choose.
kmills:
Carryfast:
newmercman:
I disagree on the outsourcing of engines, vertical integration was the way to go, proven by the success of those that did it that way and the failure of those that didn’t.To complicate that a little, Rolls Royce diesels could have been part of British Leyland, then they would have had the best of both worlds, already standard fitment in the Crusader, it kind of makes sense, even though it wasn’t radically different to the TL12.
Surely the operator goes for what’s best not where/how it was sourced by the manufacturer.Bearing in mind that there are no conclusive precedents concerning vertical integration being mutually exclusive with the assembly model.As shown by Leyland previously and more recently Volvo using outsourced components as and when required.Also DB supplying loose Detroit engines together with the choice of ■■■■■■■ in Western Star.While for me the ultimate truck today would probably be an Australian spec KW with a loose supplied ( or just blatantly copied
As for the TL12 v Rolls absolutely ‘if’ the UK government had wanted Leyland to survive it would/should have made a hostile takeover of Rolls Royce diesels.In which case Leyland most certainly would have had a radically different engine in terms of torque output potential than the TL12 for the reason I’ve given and as proved by its ability to take on the ■■■■■■■ in the T45.Having said that did it really matter when the only way that our sick war ravaged economy could have taken on the might of the German/European post war foreign aid scam was in the form of trade barriers and protectionist measures regardless.Instead of which they all went along with US foreign policy aims regarding Europe and the rest is history.
Quote; 'While for me the ultimate truck today would probably be an Australian spec KW ■■ - mmmmmm
Have you driven any Aus spec Kenworth’s then? - I’m guessing that maybe you haven’t, or it probably wouldn’t be at the top of your wish list - unless you fancy the following;
*no cab suspension - hence the rough ride.
*no air assistance on the clutch - hence a left leg like Shergar, just from pulling away in traffic a few times.
*an ‘on/off’ clutch operation- sometimes making you look like quite an amateur.
*appalling all round visibility, due to the windscreen & side windows being rather high
*crap mirrors
*crap windscreen wipers - generally resulting in a ‘smear’, not a ‘wipe’
*dodgy & sometimes dangerous cab entry / exit steps - be careful in wet there CFBut, as you quite correctly point out, you do get a choice of drivetrain - though not as big a choice as it used to be.I think the choice is currently ■■■■■■■■ or Paccar’s own MX motor - ie a Daf engine. Cat engines are definitely not available in a KW nowadays, and I’m not sure about the Detroit motor, which I suspect isn’t available as (correct me if I’m wrong) Detroit is owned by Daimler Benz, who like to fit the Detroit’s in the Freightliners - which is also owned by Daimler Benz.
The choice of gearbox is the good old Fuller roadranger (manual) - a great box, or the good old Fuller Roadranger (auto) a totally crap version of a great box.Is this still top of the wish list? Funnily enough, while Aus built trucks are still plentiful here, the Europeans are making huge inroads (no pun intended) into the truck market here, which sort of confirms the previous remarks about in-house engine manufacture. Which ironically, is where things are heading here - Mack’s standard engine ( & gearbox) fitment is made by Volvo - who own Mack, Freightliner’s motors come from Merc / Daimler Benz, who own Freightliner - you get the picture.
Mind you CF, a Scania V8 lump?- I’m with you on that one though
You make those Aussie motors sound like something we produced years back
Carryfast:
newmercman:
I think the V8 Scania as a loose engine comment is the only sensible thing Carryfast has ever suggested, there would be one under the bonnet of my Peterbilt if such a thing existed.On that subject, well sort of, the Leatherhead Loony mentioned my CAT engine and the newer Volvo in some kind of twisted logic pertaining to the Marathon, apples and oranges, as usual. The Volvo is smothered by emission control junk and judging by the problems I’ve had lately it’s made of cheese, whereas the CAT runs as nature intended, fresh air in and filthy polar ice cap melting smoke out, I bought it for reliability, not for the power and I have no idea how long the con-rods are, but I do know that it has a live rear axle, two in fact, not that any of that has any relevance to this thread, but he started it [emoji16][emoji16]
Firstly trucks have to have live rear axles because they are … trucks not cars and need to be built to handle weight.As opposed to making a decent riding and handling ( not to mention decent looking ) … car which can compete with a BMW.
While the reference to putting a latest generation Scania V8 in a ‘new’ Pete as opposed to the cheap and nasty in house,Renault designed ?,thing in the Volvo surely that’s obviously an apples v apples comparison which seems to bust the myth of all in house being best.My guess being that Peterbilt would massacre Volvo in North America given that option in its armoury.
As for the C15 that’s got a 6 3/4 inch stroke v the 5.5 inch stroke of the TL12.While the N14 and the Rolls Eagle were on a level 6 inch par.Make of that what you choose.
What engine have Renault designed for Volvo■■?
I was wondering that myself. Maybe it was my reference to cheese that set off his ADHD?
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
newmercman:
I was wondering that myself. Maybe it was my reference to cheese that set off his ADHD?Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
At a guess it would be a short lived short stroke jobby
Well Renault did make petrol engines for Volvo cars so who knows?
Pete.
IIRC Scammell did fit the AEC AV 1100 into some export chassis for I think Australia. If anyone has 2010 AEC Society Gazette copies there are some articles about this engine included in more than one issue.
It would be a long stroke Seddon Atkinson looky likey with a permit to run Leatherhead to Los Angeles round trips. Supplied with padded body warmer, checked shirt, Wrangler jeans, cowboy boots and a Rolls Royce Diesels baseball cap.
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
In all fairness I rated the Renault diesels quite highly.For loose engine suppliers they can write automotive off,the Europeans have stitched it up,even marine and construction is becoming a one horse race,at the moment getting won by, you guessed it the Europeans.Terex,Hyundai,Doosan all switching to Scania 5 cylinder this year.All down to pricing.
cav551:
IIRC Scammell did fit the AEC AV 1100 into some export chassis for I think Australia. If anyone has 2010 AEC Society Gazette copies there are some articles about this engine included in more than one issue.
And South Africa where it was the AEC Super Mammoth.
So what’s an AV1100?
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
The AEC AV1100T was the most powerful engine in the AEC range.
Also used in SA rail cars.
railstaff:
What engine have Renault designed for Volvo■■?
That’s why I also ended the sentence with a question mark.I’ve previously seen some references to the D13/MP8 for example being a Renault design ?.However now can’t find any actual confirmation of that either way.But still seems to be plenty of comments out there concerning the thing being a piece of junk regardless. On that note the premise stands a good outsourced one beats a bad in house one and vice versa and in house or outsourced is no guarantee of a bullet proof design.
In addition to as I said numerous examples of in house manufacture not being mutually exclusive with the assembly model and outsourcing of major components.To the point where as I said it is still possible to find ■■■■■■■ engines offered as an option in both Volvo and DB group products.In addition to the option of Fuller v I shift for example.In which case as I’ve said ironically Scania could probably take out the ■■■■■■■ ISX and Volvo’s D13/16 if it offered its V8 as a loose option.In a similar way that ■■■■■■■ and Rolls took out the TL12.
railstaff:
In all fairness I rated the Renault diesels quite highly.For loose engine suppliers they can write automotive off,the Europeans have stitched it up,even marine and construction is becoming a one horse race,at the moment getting won by, you guessed it the Europeans.Terex,Hyundai,Doosan all switching to Scania 5 cylinder this year.All down to pricing.
Surely that just contradicts your own false premise.
Assuming that Terex at least isn’t a VAG subsidiary how does that make the case for in house only as opposed to the best most cost effective solution for the job regardless of how it’s sourced or supplied.Which in that case ironically just means an assembler using an in house supplied loose product.As opposed to an in house manufacturer using outsourced components in the case of Leyland etc.Let alone as I said if Scania decided to get its V8 certificated as a loose engine in the North American and Australian markets.In which case it’s all about the product not how it’s sourced.While I’d guess that ■■■■■■■ could then do a lot worse than doing whatever it takes to get the N14 type of design back into common use preferably using the ISX’s bore and stroke.I’d guess that would result in the max weight automotive truck engine market being a two horse race.One based on an in house product also supplied as a loose option the other being a dedicated loose specialist component supply.Just as GMC trucks could be fitted with outsourced ■■■■■■■ engines and GMC engines were supplied as loose engines to assemblers.